Talk:Gnezdovo

Notes and references

This might be personal opinion more than common application, but I think that the notes and references should be split up into separate sections (as opposed to be listed together). It makes the article a bit more difficult to get through when some of the superscript footnote tags (I don't know what to actually call them) lead to references, while others lead to additional comments. -- Kicking222 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right but I don't know how to split them. Furthermore, lumping notes and references together is a standard practice even with featured articles. See Radhanite, for instance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Pass

Some pictures would be cool if it is possible, but I found the article interesting, and deemed it good enough for GA. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Syrnes

This Scandinavian (Norsemen) name Syrnes for Gnezdovo is not mentioned in main article. Please add it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.112.169.42 (talk) 18:53, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gnezdovo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hello, this is being reviewed as part of the Good Article sweeps. I have read through the article and find it to be close to meeting GA criteria, but a few issues need to be addressed:

1. The lead section does not give a sufficient summary of the article. Major components have been left out (eg. what has been found there?).
2. A few statements need references. I have tagged them with "citation needed" tags to make them easy to find.
3. Any English-language references would be useful.
4. Is there any information about who discovered the site?
5. For the sentence that begins with "In later centuries, the ruling princes...", could the list be turned into prose? For example, give the names of the princes and state that they lived in location A instead of location B. Also remember that a comprehensive list is unnecessary; if a few examples are given, that should be sufficient. I don't want this suggestion to cause the article to lose focus.
6. The "compare site A to site B" sentence could also use some work. Rather than telling readers to make the connections on their own, a couple of examples with brief explanations would be more helpful.
7. It the article refers to the site as "Gnyozdovo" throughout, the article should probably be moved to reflect this.

I will place this reassessment on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because this review was improperly transcluded (my fault), I will wait a few more days before taking any action. I contacted all of the relevant projects and major editors, so I assume that nothing is going to get done. I would love to be pleasantly surprised, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After waiting an extra week, none of my concerns have been addressed. I am delisting the article, but I encourage future editors to use my list of concerns as suggestions for improvements to the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

19 out of 20 non-Norse

I was expecting to see the graves described as non-Scandinavian. This is due to two reasons, one of which is related to Soviet archaeologist methodology and the other to a report from a person I know who has worked at the excavations. In Soviet, and probably modern Russian, archaeology, a grave is only categorized as Norse if *all* the finds are Norse. If a single object is Slavic, the grave is categorized as Slavic. The second reason is more upsetting. A Russian friend of mine used to work at excavations at Gnezdovo and, according to him, the head archaeologist insisted that before a grave was documented, he had to add a Slavic or Baltic object to the finds. I was perplexed as to why and it was not until I learned of Soviet/Russian methodology that I understood the reason why. Is it really NPOV to accept uncritically a "fact" established on methodology that is biassed and slanted to begin with? Berig (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)